Comment: I´ll again object

(See in situ)

I´ll again object

but it is nothing personal, I enjoy this discussion with you very much. You make points which need to be addressed.

I think you´re wrong that there is no such thing as just war. -I obviously mean a war fought by weapons resulting in killings, not a quarrel of ideologues who is the better demagogue. And I believe it would be really dangerous moral relativism to claim there is no such thing as just war - dangerous to our mind, moral, lifes and even lifes of our posterity as potentially free beings because demeaning our defensibility against major evils.

I'll try to explain why you're principially wrong both with the claim of non-existence of the just war and "might makes right", going as briefly as possible back to the very core principles of how, why and where the right and wrong comes into existence. So please be patient and try think about, because the where is in the head.

Every war against military invader is a just war - absolutely regardless whether the invader believes he is right or not. No mercy against an invader should be in place before surrenders. This is especially true in the case where the invader's goals are to make the people or a class of the people living on the invaded territory serfs or even enslave them (as the nazis did) or even exterminate them (as the nazis did) in the genocide supported even by their so called "laws" having nothing to do with justice (based on so called "eugenics" passing off as "science" which is directly derived from the so called "darwinism" -a machiavelistic ideology of "might makes right" based on insane misinterpretations of Ch. Darwin's evolution theory implications and sometimes principially directly contradicting it - for example by distorting the "survival of fittest" to "survival of mightest" - which usually eventually selfdestruct).

Different cultures have slightly different basic moral codes, but generally the above about just war is true everywhere, even in places where few would expect it.

For instant telling example: There is a (not widely known) recent example of a successful just war (a civil war) - led by the movement of Theravada monks which indeed called themselves "Just War" - in Sri-Lanka against Tamil terrorist army having publicly declared goal to invade rest of the Sri-Lanka and dominate&destroy the Sinhali Theravada culture there. Tamils have no right of seldetermination on the Sri-Lanka territory, because they have their state in India. I would add that people in the west, often brainwashed by the mess of the western ideologies pretending mediate eastern ethics (people who usually don't have slightest idea about what are indeed the real principles of the "buddhist" ethics and also because western translations and explications of its code are deliberately very tendentious) object by question:
How is it possible the by them so called "buddhists" didn't surrender to the invader (as for example most of the so called vajrayana "buddhists" in Tibet to the China) and instead fought them ferociously - when their ethics is in usual circumstances that a killing and even hurting is a 1st ethical advice no no, how is it possible that the highest monks in the formal hierarchy of the so called "buddhism" led such movement (although of course the war in military sense was led by commanders of the Sri-Lanka military).

I will not answer the question, because it is an exceptionally silly one with a trivial answer having to do with justified identity selfdefense and I don't want to fill this thread by answers to silly questions which would need a quite complicated explanation of the Abhidhamma principles, but I'll instead state that even from the point of view of the western ethics and law the monks were very obviously right.

Their rightness was the base for the swift devastating success of the military operations against Tamil army even it was cryptically supported by considerable foreign powers as the huge neighboring India (which wishes annexation of Sri-Lanka) and others (one not knowing key things about history of ethics wouldn't even expect to engage there like the state of Israel - which supported resolution of the conflict on both sides which still baffles many - I mean those who even know something about - posing good question what was their rationale).

There was almost nobody among the Sinhalis who wouldn't support it, because they felt the war was life-death decision of their otherwise exceptionally peaceful society very existence and therefore future ability to keep up the in principle non-religious Theravada tradition society against the set of the might arian eclectic religious cults justifying caste society called in general "hinduism" - as Theravada was in jeopardy by for literally millenias before and the teachings of Buddha were subjected to major distortions by - then called "mahajana" (or by shamanic cults in Tibet fused with Buddha's teachings called then "vajrayana" paradoxicly to justify the even for its times quite violent regime).

And it was in fact the historic Buddha Sidhattha Gautama who revolted with his non-religious individual centered teachings against core dogmas of this "hinduist" cults two and half millenias ago. His very practical experience based teachings of individual freedom and fine method how to discern right, wrong and neutral by methodical use of high mental states of reflection and insight are the original inspiration base (although often very distorted and misunderstood) of the individual ethical beliefs of most of the mankind (including then later christian and indirectly even Islam religions) to this days and for example at the beginning of the 20th century the vast majority of the people living on this planet still direcly considered themselves followers of Buddha, and vast majority of the minor rest of the people identified itself as followers of the ethical/religious teachings directly (as teachings of Jehoshua Masiah) or indirectly (as the teachings of Abu al-Quasim Muhammad) deriving the basics of the right in their ethical systems from teachings of Buddha -in case of Jehoshua in a revolt to SOME of the ethical teachings of corrupted hebrews in his time (the "names" "Masiah" later "Christ" and "Muhammad" have more or less the simmilar original meaning in the sense they are spiritual progress titles - and they are originally titles not like family names - Masiah and Christ means "annointed", Muhammad means "praiseworthy" and "Buddha" or in fact the full title of Sidhattha Gautama "Sammasambuddha" means "supreme awaken" in this era - the Theravada tradition recognizes several previous eras and Buddhas - and just for example if the Jesus Christ would be tituled in pali his title would be quite exactly "Sakadagami" - try find what does it mean - the meaning of that word is the reason why neither the jews nor muslims recognize him as Messiah and it is pointless to expect them recognize him as Messiah even if he would come 2nd time in this era to judge it and end it and so the Zionism - either christian or jewish is fundamentally flawed ideology). One who knows something about can confidently state that most of that what is right in the Christian and Islam ethics was in principle invented by Buddha and ancient hebrews (in their case especially the ethics of war which made them survive to this days as a powerful extremely independent nation even against enemies very superior in numbers and making multiple attempts throughout the history to exterminate them). And when we are at DP I will add that the core of the Ron Paul message - the golden rule - is in fact derived from Buddha's teachings and wasn't known before him.

You're in certain sense right that "might makes right". But I would definitely put the "right" into apostrophes -as "right" in the sense "later demagogically justified". It is not a result of belief, but a result of positive knowing -I don't want to flaunt but it can be telling - as somebody having several degrees in clinical psychology, higher level meditation training and university education in brain fyziology - that contrary to common moral relativist beliefs the right/wrong diferentiation is not a relative but very absolute category based on individual insight of what is salutary, dependent on basic hedonistic emotions of pleasant/displeasing - which subjectively exist as phenomenas and have controlling function throughout the whole hierarchy of emotions -from the most primitive emotions to highest moral senses, have clearly discernable objective mechanisms and discernable locations in brains - even at the level of most primitive animals - and have purely deterministic nature. This deterministic principle of right and wrong consequences (under the pali term "kamma" - in sanskrit "karma" and its cyclical nature of so called samsara of repeated suffering based on repeating of greed, hatred and delusion - although the objective base then not known, because there was no objective neuroscience) was first described by Buddha together with the method how to find and use the the superior mental phenomena "sati" we don't even have a distinct terms in western languages for (-the closest term in english is "mindfullness") to break the cyclical determinism of wrong. It is in fact the core of Buddha's teachings and it has nothing to do with a religion - it is not a religious belief but purely experience based methodical psychology of individual spiritual progress revolting against violent religious, ideological hatred and delusions.) What I wrote above about origins of western ethics, especially the penultimate sentence before this paragraph is most probably extremely hardly swallowable for people fed from their childhood by the extremely distorted history taught (not only) in the western schools and churches.

There's another proverb: winners write the history. It is unfortunately very true and I think it is even more dangerous for humankind than to surrender own mind to "might makes right" paradigm and not question the purported roots of our present ethical discoruse and not to discover roots of its flaws leading to major suffering.

All killings even accidental or like they say in US military "collateral" by invader on the territory of the invaded should be considered 1st degree murder with extremely aggravated circumstances with principals in the leadership of the invader and in the case of winning against them (which I know would inevitably happen if majority keeps own morals undistorted and does not surrender to evil) they should be subjected to the same what they wanted for the people living in the invaded territory - serfdom and extermination - not by death penalty (to kill somebody not threatening to kill is unethical revenge even the one killed somebody, and even if it would be ethical, there is always very considerable risk of judicial error or even murder, because the judicial system is and always was one of the most corrupted mankind invented), but by life sentence without parole and possibility to procreate - to give them nothing else than chance of remorse which only can save their souls and at least figuratively mitigate their posterity suffering - if they have any from before they became monsters.